Talk:2008 Debate of Build and Release&action=edit

Put in your comments

Also use:

 ~~~~

to sign your comments and questions.

CharlesMerriam 06:42, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Summary of devel naming thread.

The actual naming of "update 1" has created a long thread on the devel mailing list. This thread shows the expected friction between time based release names and function based release names. Following the "Can't tell your players without a program" rule, here's a short summary:

Summary of devel thread to 8 Apr 2008

• Micheal stone: no problem
• Andres Salomon: hmm. Apple Blueberry (named alphabetical)
• Gary Martin: No, official-703.. No to OLPC2 thats hardware
• Dennis Gilmore: OLPC2. Oh, an the next hardware is XO-2 and should
• have same releases.
• Simon: 802.month or 802.season to push exact time. OLPC-2 type

naming for feature based.

• Morgan: use internal names without exact ship times in case we missed.
• Arron Konstom: outward consistency counts. No update-1-703, even if

we did it before. Actually <hardware version>.<major software>.<minor software> is best.

• Walter Bender: Seasons are out. Feature based naming will slip.

XO-2 is hardware. OLPC-2, er Sugar-2, maybe OLPC-Fedora 1 is software. Names are hard. We will ship based on time.

• Paul Fox: OLPC doesn't sound like software. Start with high numbers.
• Tomeu Vizoso: Sugar sounds like software.
• Kent Loobey: Schools really want predictable dates. Let's use

solstices which aren't.

• Polychronis Ypodimatopoulos: Prefixes shouldn't get tooooo long.
• Richard Smith: How about feature based? <hardware version>.<major

software>.<minor software>

• Mitch Bradley: What are we releasing? OLPC <component> <Generation> <Ordinal>
• Jim Gettys: Note that OS protocol changes may or may not change all

Activity binaries.

• Martin Langoff: Feature based, <major software (API)>.<minor

software (Stability)>.<bugfix> - <country>, with some interaction with ISO numbers. Let's start with 0. something since the API isn't stable.

• Mitch Bradley: Feature based with letters, .10 doesn't work too well.
• Morgan Collect: Right 7.10 is said as "7.1" and 7.04 and "7"
• Charles Merriam: Use <OLPC or creator> <component> <year> <major revision>:<minor revision> [- <special build>]

Two competing naming themes

Option 1: Functional naming

• Use: some version of <component name> <major (API) version> . <minor (patch) version>
  • no consensus on how to designate special builds; patch number versus suffix.
  • no discussion on how much constitutes a "major" API change.

Option 2: Naming incorporating a year

• Still my minority view. It is listed as the minimum buy-in before I work seriously on a build system.
• I'm adding it the main page as additional specification.